Search Results

1. [2023] NZSSAA 5 (20 March 2023) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...facts [9] The facts were not particularly contentious. First, we note that the relevant period, from 8 November 2021 to 27 February 2022 followed the Auckland COVID-19 lockdown.2 Both regulations reference a definition in Section 10(1) of the Education and Training Act 2020, however that definition relates to "secondary school", and is irrelevant to this case. 2 Lockdown occurred from 17 August 2021 to 10 November 2021. 3 [10] The year had been diff...

2. Jhanji v Kumar [2015] NZIACDT 71 (03 June 2015) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...information. Dishonest and misleading conduct [10] Mr Kumar faced a complaint of gross and systematic dishonesty in his dealings with the complainant, and then the Registrar when she investigated this complaint. The allegations are that he: [10.1] Created a false agreement where the fees are only $100. [10.2] He required his client to pay $4,500, and provided a falsified invoice for $100. 4 [10.3] He attempted to dishonestly take $4,400 from his client, effecting a pre...

3. Legal Aid Complaints Management Policy [pdf, 633 KB]

   ...process. Legal references This chapter contains the following references to the Legal Services Act 2011: Section Title 3 Purpose of the Act 68 Functions of the Secretary 79 Performance Review Committee 91 Secretary may audit providers 101 Interim restrictions that may be imposed by the Secretary 102 Sanctions that may be imposed by the Secretary 109 Disclosure of privileged communications under section 92 or 96 Purpose of the Act The purpose of the Act is to promote acc...

4. BORA Organic Products Bill [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...intrusiveness, the greater the need for justification and attendant safeguards. 1 RJR MacDonald v Attorney-General of Canada (1995) 127 DLR (4th) 1. 2 Irwin Toy Ltd v A-G (Quebec) (1989) 58 DLR (4th) 577 (SCC). 3 Clause 9. 4 Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [162]. 5 Ibid, at [172]. 15. Clause 62 of the Bill empowers an organic products officer to enter certain places (except for a dwelling house or marae) without a search warrant. 16. Warrantless searches h...

5. Dalgety v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2023] NZACC 133 [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...appeal more generally. 6 The Decision [20] Section 161(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 provides that, if an appeal is not prosecuted with due diligence, the Court may dismiss the appeal on the application of any party. Regulation 10(1) of the Accident Compensation (Review Costs and Appeals) Regulations 2002 provides that a Judge may make any directions that appear best adapted to secure the just, expeditious, and economical disposal of the appeal proceedings....

6. [2024] NZEnvC 121 Queenstown Lakes District Council v Silver Creek Limited [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...SCL’s lack of compliance with abatement notices and other directions over a month, and history of prior enforcement action, QLDC had little choice but to seek interim orders to 2 Referred to Tasman District Council v Douglas [2010] NZEnvC 101. 3 Wellington City Council v Liffey Street Ltd [2022] NZEnvC 226. 4 Wellington City Council v Liffey Street Ltd [2023] NZEnvC 36. 5 Wellington City Council v Mackenzie EnvC W15/2001. 4 ensure compliance was prioritised at the site....

7. [2016] NZSSAA 047 (24 May 2016) [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...XXXX Limited from time-to- time. For instance a payment into her account of $800 on 1 May 2013 (evidenced by a bank statement at page 651 of the Section 12K report) follows a GST return of 24 April 2013 which recorded a GST refund of $877.53.(page 101 of the Section 12K report). Similarly at page 694 of the Section 12K report reference is made to a payment of $400 on 7 April 2014 following a GST refund of $793.19 on 2 April 2014 (recorded at page 99 of the Section 12K report). [7] Mr H...

8. R v D LCRO 56 / 2009 (19 June 2009) - Rehearing Decision [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...months. In these circumstances the LCRO decision would not be different for the reason that a three month delay in responding to a colleague’s correspondence is also considered to be unreasonable, and in contravention of the Rules, namely Rule 10.1. [23] Mr XX did not point to any other information that was not put before the LCRO. [24] This submission does not disclose a proper basis for a rehearing. This ground is dismissed. No reference made by LCRO about the nature of...

9. WHT - Chair's directions for lower value claims [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...damage  recommended remedial work in relation to each incidence of water penetration  cost of the remedial work. Weathertight Homes Tribunal Chair’s Directions for lower value claims page 5 of 5 10. Inspections and site visits 10.1 Respondents or their expert advisors are entitled to inspect the claimant’s property for the purpose of responding to the claim, but the timing and length of any inspection must be reasonable and arranged by appointment. Arrangemen...

10. [2019] NZEmpC 43 Moody v Chamberlain [pdf, 241 KB]

    ...2 Referred to as the principle of privity of litigation. See Seales v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 828 at [43]-[48]; Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [2018] NZEmpC 101 at [6]. 3 Seales at [45]. [6] To put the Attorney-General’s concerns in context, it is necessary to understand what the case is about and what contribution the proposed interveners might be in a position to make. [7] In th